If this misdemeanor conviction can lead to gun rights loss, what will the next minor offence be that does the same.
Won't be long rest assured.
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.
The plaintiffs in this case, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, both of Maine, had pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault charges after slapping or shoving their romantic partners. Several years later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic abusers.
The Two-Way
Supreme Court Throws Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Conviction
Both argued that the weapons ban should not apply to them because their misdemeanor cases were for "reckless conduct" rather than intentional abuse.
Their appeal had been rejected by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the plaintiffs carried it on to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. Five justices concurred in Kagan's opinion, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part.
Similar domestic abuse laws are now on the books in 34 states and the District of Columbia, triggering the federal weapons ban. But if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way today, that ban would no longer have applied in such cases.
The case, Voisine v. United States, had attracted attention in recent days because Congress has been in turmoil over efforts to tighten controls on firearms — especially to limit the number of people who can buy guns despite their past actions.
When argued in open court on Feb. 29, the case drew attention because Thomas asked questions in oral argument for the first time in a decade. He drew gasps when he asked several questions from the bench.
Thomas had asked the attorney defending the conviction of the two men whether any other misdemeanor conviction could cause a defendant the loss of "a constitutional right." Thomas has been known as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment guarantee of a right "to keep and bear arms."
Wrong time for them fellas to try that case with the political wind blowing as it is. No surprise the SCOTUS agreed to hear it. I bet the libs figured they could score a couple "conservative" judges and get it ruled in favor of communism.
Obviously "Gun Rights" is not a right, but a privilege easily taken away, about like a drivers license.
No one likes people that beat their partners, but the precedent set is a open door to other similar restrictions.
If this misdemeanor conviction can lead to gun rights loss, what will the next minor offence be that does the same.
Won't be long rest assured.
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.
The plaintiffs in this case, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, both of Maine, had pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault charges after slapping or shoving their romantic partners. Several years later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic abusers.
The Two-Way
Supreme Court Throws Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Conviction
Both argued that the weapons ban should not apply to them because their misdemeanor cases were for "reckless conduct" rather than intentional abuse.
Their appeal had been rejected by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the plaintiffs carried it on to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. Five justices concurred in Kagan's opinion, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part.
Similar domestic abuse laws are now on the books in 34 states and the District of Columbia, triggering the federal weapons ban. But if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way today, that ban would no longer have applied in such cases.
The case, Voisine v. United States, had attracted attention in recent days because Congress has been in turmoil over efforts to tighten controls on firearms — especially to limit the number of people who can buy guns despite their past actions.
When argued in open court on Feb. 29, the case drew attention because Thomas asked questions in oral argument for the first time in a decade. He drew gasps when he asked several questions from the bench.
Thomas had asked the attorney defending the conviction of the two men whether any other misdemeanor conviction could cause a defendant the loss of "a constitutional right." Thomas has been known as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment guarantee of a right "to keep and bear arms."
this ruling just solved the Muslim owning guns problem
So in other words, nothing has changed. That became the law back when Bubba Clinton signed it with his little pen. Used to love hearing him brag about putting 100,000 new cops on the job, but nobody would mention the fact that he took 400,000(cops, corrections officers, armed guards, etc) OFF the job with that one signature...........
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
You obviously have no idea how domestic violence cases are handled.
Well, they can get one on the "black market" anyway, there are so many out there. Or so the logic goes
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
I agree 100%! I never could understand that class of people!
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
Yeah...he must have really beat the schitt out of her to have earned a misdemeanor charge...
Domestic violence could be the charge if someone thinks you spanked your child too hard...
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
If the offence warrants I,t a felony can and will be charged
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
And woman, if a wife slaps her husband, or one lesbo pushes her partner, and the cops come, they can lose the right to bear arms.
Unless I am mistaken, if LE is called in some states for a domestic, some one is going to jail, is pretty much the law as written.
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
If the offence warrants it, a felony can and will be charged.
Two of my brothers are retired cops.
One spent a ton of time in the courts where he saw guys get f u c k e d over daily from lying b i t c h wives every day on bogus domestic violence charges....
I might think differently if I not had their influence..
Domestic charges (atleast here) also would apply if you got into a fight with your brother, or anyone else living in the same house (think roomate)
It most definitely should and does.
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
Pretty much just an
accusation gets the job done.
Kinda the same as being put on the watch list.
Not much "due process" involved.
Terrible decision.
And surprising disdain being shown, here, for our constitution and our rights.
Sold out by Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito. Again.
Domestic charges (atleast here) also would apply if you got into a fight with your brother, or anyone else living in the same house (think roomate)
Here, it even includes prior roommates. Get drunk and punch your college roommate five years after you graduate? Technically, that's family violence.
What this really means is about 50% on the fire will no longer be able to own a gun! 6-2....Ouch!
Sorry Brissssssletow
Domestic charges (atleast here) also would apply if you got into a fight with your brother, or anyone else living in the same house (think roomate)
Here, it even includes prior roommates. Get drunk and punch your college roommate five years after you graduate? Technically, that's family violence.
All for a misdemeanor.
Thomas was right - find ANY other Constitutionally protected, enumerated right you can lose for a mere misdemeanor. There are none.
We've been sold out, wholesale, by the supposed R "conservative" Justices.
Domestic charges (atleast here) also would apply if you got into a fight with your brother, or anyone else living in the same house (think roomate)
Here, it even includes prior roommates. Get drunk and punch your college roommate five years after you graduate? Technically, that's family violence.
That's insane.
Nibble, nibble, nibble, that is how they will get the guns.
Obviously "Gun Rights" is not a right, but a privilege easily taken away, about like a drivers license.
No one likes people that beat their partners, but the precedent set is a open door to other similar restrictions.
This. Bad mojo. The Trump Supreme Court will overturn it. Stare Decisis isn't absolute when the departure from original intent is this aggregious.
Nibble, nibble, nibble, that is how they will get the guns.
That's it exactly. The Lautenberg Amendment was just taken from a piranha to a shark. It will be expanded yet again - rest assured - to include any "reckless or violent misdemeanor" assault. Considering that such charges are now routine in many places for simple schoolyard scuffles, many will lose their 2A RTKBA in years to come before they ever reach the age of majority.
Couple this with the "slave state" strategy of Bloomberg's that I detailed here several years back, and the 2A is on life support at this moment, and there won't be many - if any - around to fight for it in one, perhaps two, generations - nor even remember why.
The "conservatives" on the SCOTUS, in Congress, in state houses, have sold us out. Their thirty pieces of silver will be tainted with the blood of millions. Such is the lesson of history.
Obviously "Gun Rights" is not a right, but a privilege easily taken away, about like a drivers license.
No one likes people that beat their partners, but the precedent set is a open door to other similar restrictions.
This. Bad mojo. The Trump Supreme Court will overturn it. Stare Decisis isn't absolute when the departure from original intent is this aggregious.
6-2. Even Sotomayor's dissent didn't back the 2A. Trump would have to replace Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, and Alito - and then hope that they all actually backed the rights of the people. Fat chance.
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
Yes it should because the domestic cases sure ain't what you expect them to be for sure.
And in the end there is no way to prove anything often..
But if you DO beat your wife or girlfriend, you should not own a gun.
There is a huge gray area in there though...
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
Yes it should because the domestic cases sure ain't what you expect them to be for sure.
And in the end there is no way to prove anything often..
But if you DO beat your wife or girlfriend, you should not own a gun.
There is a huge gray area in there though...
Charge them with and convict them of a felony. That's how Constitutional rights are lost. Misdemeanors? GMAFB.
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
I agree. All it takes is 1 teenage kid with a grudge to put the screws to some poor father or mother. Some of these guys don't get it and haven't had to deal with this situation. Parents have their hands tied in most situations and having to deal with a real handful of a teenager with oppositional defiant issues, could be the end of their gun rights. Just sayin...
Two of my brothers are retired cops.
One spent a ton of time in the courts where he saw guys get f u c k e d over daily from lying b i t c h wives every day on bogus domestic violence charges....
I might think differently if I not had their influence..
Good post.
This. Bad mojo. The Trump Supreme Court will overturn it. Stare Decisis isn't absolute when the departure from original intent is this aggregious.
The Vote was 6-2!!! There are 4 solid conservatives on the SC right now but only 2 voted against it? Not going to happen even if Trump were to win. Keep in mind even if Trump wins he is on record supporting gun control.
Trump's 2000 Position on gun control...
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
And this is being pushed by the same gang that thinks all felons should be allowed to vote after their prison sentence.
It is a pick and choose game. The thing is nowadays, they do not even attempt to hide it.
If this misdemeanor conviction can lead to gun rights loss, what will the next minor offence be that does the same.
Won't be long rest assured.
Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.
The plaintiffs in this case, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, both of Maine, had pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault charges after slapping or shoving their romantic partners. Several years later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic abusers.
The Two-Way
Supreme Court Throws Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Conviction
Both argued that the weapons ban should not apply to them because their misdemeanor cases were for "reckless conduct" rather than intentional abuse.
Their appeal had been rejected by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the plaintiffs carried it on to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. Five justices concurred in Kagan's opinion, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part.
Similar domestic abuse laws are now on the books in 34 states and the District of Columbia, triggering the federal weapons ban. But if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way today, that ban would no longer have applied in such cases.
The case, Voisine v. United States, had attracted attention in recent days because Congress has been in turmoil over efforts to tighten controls on firearms — especially to limit the number of people who can buy guns despite their past actions.
When argued in open court on Feb. 29, the case drew attention because Thomas asked questions in oral argument for the first time in a decade. He drew gasps when he asked several questions from the bench.
Thomas had asked the attorney defending the conviction of the two men whether any other misdemeanor conviction could cause a defendant the loss of "a constitutional right." Thomas has been known as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment guarantee of a right "to keep and bear arms."
No huge loss - its been the law for quite a few years - aka the Lautenberg Amendment. Its question 11i on the 4473 Form. Surprised at the lack of knowledge here.
Crazy women need protection from fed up men.
And this is being pushed by the same gang that thinks all felons should be allowed to vote after their prison sentence.
It is a pick and choose game. The thing is nowadays, they do not even attempt to hide it.
Lets keep in mind the GOP wants to allow people who are on the suspected Terror Watch List to be able to buy an AK or .45 but you guys who got drunk and smacked you wife around a little are screwed! Life is funny some times.
Who were the 2 conservatives on the SC who voted for it?
this ruling just solved the Muslim owning guns problem
Bullsh*t...
....there has always been a double standard for the goat humpers and this won't be any different...for the same reason you don't hear sh*t out of feminists when it comes to Muslims and female genital mutilation.
Hypocrisy and crickets from the scumbags.
And this is being pushed by the same gang that thinks all felons should be allowed to vote after their prison sentence.
It is a pick and choose game. The thing is nowadays, they do not even attempt to hide it.
Lets keep in mind the GOP wants to allow people who are on the suspected Terror Watch List to be able to buy an AK or .45 but you guys who got drunk and smacked you wife around a little are screwed! Life is funny some times.
Who were the 2 conservatives on the SC who voted for it?
Um, no. The GOP is at least asking for Due Process, where the accused is allowed to know of the charges and mount a defense. It's one of those silly things in the Constitution, you know.
Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".
This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.
Yes it should because the domestic cases sure ain't what you expect them to be for sure.
And in the end there is no way to prove anything often..
But if you DO beat your wife or girlfriend, you should not own a gun.
There is a huge gray area in there though...
Charge them with and convict them of a felony. That's how Constitutional rights are lost. Misdemeanors? GMAFB.
The Lautenberg amendment was the camel's nose under the tent, this was the camel coming completely into the tent.
It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.
The Vote was 6-2!!! There are 4 solid conservatives on the SC right now but only 2 voted against it? Not going to happen even if Trump were to win. Keep in mind even if Trump wins he is on record supporting gun control.
Trump's 2000 Position on gun control...
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?
You are on a pro-gun, pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
No one here disagrees with what you
mean but for example, in California "A defendant can be convicted of domestic battery (sometimes known as “spousal battery”) even if the “victim” is not injured in any way. All that's required is that the defendant use “force” or “violence” against him/her.3
http://www.shouselaw.com/domestic_violence273-5.htmlThat is a Heck of a long way from I believe both you and I mean by a dumbA@#! wifebeater. There is a general population in Hell for those guys but half of them don't get convicted because the wife will not testify against the abuser. But I have seen some guys get manipulated by a scheming partner and end up losing their rights after a mere push (carefully orchestrated by the less than honest woman).
The Lautenberg amendment was the camel's nose under the tent, this was the camel coming completely into the tent.
It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.
Actually, laws prohibiting ex felons (felons who served their time and "paid their debt to society") from owning a firearm was the camel's nose under the tent. If it's an actual right, then being an ex felon should not have any effect on it, so long as one is not currently and lawfully in the custody of the state.
Well, they can get one on the "black market" anyway, there are so many out there. Or so the logic goes
Or on the internet or a guns show.
The Vote was 6-2!!! There are 4 solid conservatives on the SC right now but only 2 voted against it? Not going to happen even if Trump were to win. Keep in mind even if Trump wins he is on record supporting gun control.
Trump's 2000 Position on gun control...
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?
You are on a pro-gun, pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...
Walt is just a phag.
The Lautenberg amendment was the camel's nose under the tent, this was the camel coming completely into the tent.
It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.
Actually, laws prohibiting ex felons (felons who served their time and "paid their debt to society") from owning a firearm was the camel's nose under the tent. If it's an actual right, then being an ex felon should not have any effect on it, so long as one is not currently and lawfully in the custody of the state.
That is true. There was no prohibition on felons owning firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.
The Vote was 6-2!!! There are 4 solid conservatives on the SC right now but only 2 voted against it? Not going to happen even if Trump were to win. Keep in mind even if Trump wins he is on record supporting gun control.
Trump's 2000 Position on gun control...
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?
You are on a pro-gun,
pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...
Do you see the irony in what you said?
Or did you mean "pro-freedom as long as you agree with me"?
The Vote was 6-2!!! There are 4 solid conservatives on the SC right now but only 2 voted against it? Not going to happen even if Trump were to win. Keep in mind even if Trump wins he is on record supporting gun control.
Trump's 2000 Position on gun control...
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?
You are on a pro-gun,
pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...
Do you see the irony in what you said?
Or did you mean "pro-freedom as long as you agree with me"?
Right on time, the Walt/Stevil circle jerk needed a pivot man.
The Lautenberg amendment was the camel's nose under the tent, this was the camel coming completely into the tent.
It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.
Actually, laws prohibiting ex felons (felons who served their time and "paid their debt to society") from owning a firearm was the camel's nose under the tent. If it's an actual right, then being an ex felon should not have any effect on it, so long as one is not currently and lawfully in the custody of the state.
That is true. There was no prohibition on felons owning firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.
Correct, and once you allow for one exception, where the state may violate the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement on the RTKABA, there's no logical stop to the progression of this trend. It should never have been allowed to start with.
Rub your thumb and index finger together!!
THAT'S....what it's all about!!
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
If the crime is that bad, charge the [bleep] with a felony...
The Second Amendment leaves no wiggle room for these liberal puke judges.
g
Obviously "Gun Rights" is not a right, but a privilege easily taken away, about like a drivers license.
No one likes people that beat their partners, but the precedent set is a open door to other similar restrictions.
Like a parking ticket or jaywalking.
Nibble, nibble, nibble, that is how they will get the guns.
It's beginning to be "chomp, chomp chomp"...
.
It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.
What's next? Might be this: Run a stop sign or get cited for speeding - lose yer gun rights...
Domestic charges (atleast here) also would apply if you got into a fight with your brother, or anyone else living in the same house (think roomate)
Here, it even includes prior roommates. Get drunk and punch your college roommate five years after you graduate? Technically, that's family violence.
All for a misdemeanor.
Thomas was right - find ANY other Constitutionally protected, enumerated right you can lose for a mere misdemeanor. There are none.
We've been sold out, wholesale, by the supposed R "conservative" Justices.
Seems strange that there were enough to get us Heller. The money has always been there. Then Scalia was murdered and all but Thomas saw the light.
But hey, the news media and Scalia's own family said he died of natural causes and they wanted NO autopsy...That makes me just a tinfoiler.
I'm guessing Ike Turner lost his gun rights for slappin a ho.
I'm guessing Ike Turner lost his gun rights for slappin a ho.
Last I heard, Don King has a carry permit...
Here's a link I seen on facebook with Thomas opinion...
http://www.gunowners.org/news06272016.htm
Well, they can get one on the "black market" anyway, there are so many out there. Or so the logic goes
BLACK GUNS MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where were the defenders of our 2nd rights.
Where was the NRA?
I didn't receive any, not one Email regarding this being before the court from them.
Where were the people that have been using the 2nd to help advance their careers?
Not one word from Ted Cruz or anyone else, not one.
Serious issues and apparently for Political Correctness, or fear of public perception, this has just let slip thru with no outrage, NONE at all.
Felons have since GCA of 68 lost the right to bear arms, and I see no reason that if a domestic attack is serious enough to loose a Constitutional right, then why were not felony charges brought in the first place?
We all just got the shaft, and take it like the good sheeple we are. Nowhere do I hear or see any outrage, just a few posts on the internet. Sad to say the least.
Folks seem much more interested in abortion, than the right to keep and bare arms.
Where were the defenders of our 2nd rights.
Where was the NRA?
I didn't receive any, not one Email regarding this being before the court from them.
Where were the people that have been using the 2nd to help advance their careers?
Not one word from Ted Cruz or anyone else, not one.
Serious issues and apparently for Political Correctness, or fear of public perception, this has just let slip thru with no outrage, NONE at all.
Felons have since GCA of 68 lost the right to bear arms, and I see no reason that if a domestic attack is serious enough to loose a Constitutional right, then why were not felony charges brought in the first place?
We all just got the shaft, and take it like the good sheeple we are. Nowhere do I hear or see any outrage, just a few posts on the internet. Sad to say the least.
Folks seem much more interested in abortion, than the right to keep and bare arms.
The NRA probably supports this decision
The NRA probably supports this decision
Your absolutely correct, they do.
The NRA Is Now Helping Advance Anti-Domestic Violence Laws
Thanks to clandestine support from the National Rifle Association (NRA), domestic violence victims in several states have been granted a major protection from their abusers. Lawmakers are taking guns away from offenders who are issued protective orders — with the backing of the country’s most prominent gun rights organization.
As the Huffington Post reports, the NRA consented to HB 1840, a Washington state bill making it legal to strip abusers of their guns if they are served with “no-contact orders, protection orders, [or] restraining orders.” And while the bill was signed into law last month, the NRA also approved similar measures elsewhere, within the last year. Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Minnesota have signed or advanced legislation banning abusers from keeping guns if they’ve been issued an order or charged with misdemeanors, all with NRA support.
The NRA’s latest stance contrasts its previous attitude toward campaigns against domestic violence. Previously, if legislation was on the table to take guns away from offenders, the NRA adamantly opposed it. Specifically, the lobby consistently argued that guns should only be stripped from abusers convicted of a felony, and lawmakers under its influence refused to advance new gun laws. But the NRA’s new position is clearing the path for lawmakers to target perpetrators in a substantial way.
The shift can be attributed, in part, to ongoing efforts aimed at boosting gun rights support among women. For instance, the NRA sold bras with holsters and pink guns at a convention last year, in an attempt to make the weapons more appealing to women. And a campaign by NRA Women encourages women to embrace guns and “Refuse To Be A Victim.’ In reality, arming women doesn’t actually protect them from their abusers.
The NRA’s approval of slightly stricter gun laws is part of a larger trend: Strategies to address domestic violence are advancing at local, state, and national levels. Activists are developing creative ways to assist victims, such as teaching beauticians how to identify signs of abuse. Police departments are also implementing policies to identify perpetrators. The Supreme Court recently took a step toward ensuring that domestic abusers can’t get their hands on guns, and survivors of domestic violence have new medical benefits under the Affordable Care Act.
Today, roughly one-third of all women living in the U.S. have experienced domestic violence
Why should anyone here g.a.f. what you think?
You are on a pro-gun, pro-freedom site and you support more gov't and anti-gun, anti-freedom creeps like Obama and Clinton.
Crawl back into your progressive hole with your other socialist minions...
Do you see the irony in what you said?
Or did you mean "pro-freedom as long as you agree with me"?
Well, considering that O' and Hildabeast (those maggots that NWA loves) would love to shut this site down (along with Limbaugh, Drudge and every other outlet that espouses some candor about the corruptocrats, gun ownership and the hypocrite progressives) no, there is no irony there.
The irony is on you.
You're defending freedom of speech which those you defend want to take from us! Seriously?
Take a big swig from the cup of common sense...
Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.
Where I live, husbands who get angry, and go to the garage to get away from their wives have been charged with domestic abuse. Seems that ignoring them for a few hours constitutes a crime.
I used to go for a drive if the wife and I had been feuding. She was counseled by a preacher that she should seek to file charges. She laughed it off, or I'd be one of "them" today.
This is not about justice and or violence...
As I read the case, the defendant did not challenge the Constitutionality of whether a misdemeanor conviction results in a firearms disability. The challenge was whether the particular type of misdemeanor of which he was convicted fit within the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" for purposes of the Lautenberg amendment. So, it really doesn't break much new ground. There was a case decided after Heller 7-2 that also dealt with a similar issue.
The Lautenberg amendment was the camel's nose under the tent, this was the camel coming completely into the tent.
It's insane that a right could be taken after a misdemeanor conviction. If it's serious enough to deprive someone of their rights then it's serious enough to be a felony.
Actually, laws prohibiting ex felons (felons who served their time and "paid their debt to society") from owning a firearm was the camel's nose under the tent. If it's an actual right, then being an ex felon should not have any effect on it, so long as one is not currently and lawfully in the custody of the state.
That is true. There was no prohibition on felons owning firearms until the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.
Correct, and once you allow for one exception, where the state may violate the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement on the RTKABA, there's no logical stop to the progression of this trend. It should never have been allowed to start with.
For example in California you are prohibited from possessing a weapon if you:
1. are a Felon.
2. adjudicated mentally insane.
3. convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence.
4. convicted of a misdemeanor battery (10 year limit)
and since Jerry Brown came back...
5. have had a dui in the last seven years.
6. been detained for a temporary mental/emotional observation.
7. owe the State back taxes.
Inch by inch.
...and since Jerry Brown came back...
5. have had a dui in the last seven years.
6. been detained for a temporary mental/emotional observation.
7. owe the State back taxes.
Inch by inch.
This is so bad.